9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the hands of the assessee. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in treating the opening balance of cash in hand on 01/04/1998 appearing in the cash book, as income of the assessee. 3. The entire addition made is unjustified, illegal and bad in the eyes of law." 3. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that as has been noted by CIT(A) on page No. 10, the assessee has furnished before him written explanation dated 27/03/2012 along with copy of cash book explaining each and every entry and this cash book was also furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. He also submitted that the copy of cash book is available on pages 10 to 18 of the paper book for the period from 01/04/96 to 31/03/98 and as per page No. 15 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prepared by Addl. Director of Investigation (Inv.), it was reported that the assessee could not explain source of deposits in banks, investment in FDRs, investment in purchase of immovable properties made by her and the details are given in the assessment order regarding such deposits and investments. The Assessing Officer also noted that since the return for assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were filed on 11/09/2002, these are not valid return of income in the eyes of law. It is also noted that no assessment has been made in assessment year 1999-2000 to 2002-2003. Accordingly, he issued notice u/s 148 in reply to which, it was submitted by assessee that the return filed by the assessee on 11/09/2002 may be treated as return filed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance against the property. Even as per the return of income filed in this assessment year, the assessee is showing income of Rs. 71,337/- only and therefore, the increase in cash in hand is only on account of receipt of alleged advance against property. As per the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31/03/98 appearing on page No. 18, the assessee is showing capital balance of the assessee at Rs. 20.92 lacs as against such capital balance of Rs. 20.61 lacs as on 31/03/97 available on page No. 17 of the paper book. Hence, it is seen that increase in capital during this year is only Rs. 0.31 lac. No such liability against the advance against property as claimed that received during this year at Rs. 8 lac and in the preceding year at Rs. 6 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra, IT Appeal No. 7 of 2003, date of order 04/01/2007 7.1 The first judgment cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee is the Tribunal decision in the case of Kailash Chand Trivedi (supra). In this case, it is noted that as per the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee, opening balance of cash in hand was Rs. 4.09 lacs and the closing balance was Rs. 4.39 lacs and therefore, there was increase of Rs. 0.30 lacs in the concerned year. It is also noted that this increase of Rs. 0.30 lacs is on account of cash withdrawn from bank Rs. 1.175 lacs and expenses and drawings of Rs. 0.87 lacs. In the light of these facts, it was held that under these facts, it cannot be said that there is any increase in cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid return. Since in that case, valid return of income was filed in earlier years, the claim of the assessee regarding opening balance was held to be acceptable by the Tribunal. Since in the present case, no valid return was filed in any earlier years, this decision of the Tribunal is not rendering any help to the assessee. 7.3 The next judgment cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee is the Tribunal decision in the case of Smt. N. Shashikala (supra). In this case also, the facts are different. In that case, the assessment year involved is 91-92. The Tribunal has noted in Para 6 that the assessee filed return of income for 90- 91 on 23/02/93 and the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) on 23/03/93 and the assessment order was passed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed. In fact, the assessee has not given the name from whom such advance was received by the assessee. No detail was given for the property against which such advance was received. Because of these differences in facts, this decision of the Tribunal is not rendering any help to the assessee. 7.5 The next judgment cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee is the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of Parmeshwar Vohra (supra). In that case, the addition was made in assessment year 93-94 although the amount in question was credited in the books of account for assessment year 92-93. This is not the fact of that case that no return of income was filed by the assessee for the preceding year prior to assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
